Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the suit was validly instituted by a duly authorised person and whether the power of attorney could be presumed proved under Section 85 of the Evidence Act.
Analysis: The authority to institute the suit depended on proof of the power of attorney. Section 85 applies only when a document purporting to be a power of attorney is executed before a Notary Public and is authenticated by the Notary Public. Mere notarisation or attestation, without proof that execution took place before the Notary and without authentication showing the manner of execution and the executants, is insufficient. On the record, the document showed only attestation after the seal had been affixed and there was no evidence of proper authentication. The document could still have been proved by other evidence, including the supporting board resolution and witness testimony, but no such proof was available. A remand was declined as the conditions for additional evidence were not satisfied.
Conclusion: The presumption under Section 85 did not arise, the power of attorney was not duly proved, and the suit was not shown to have been filed by an authorised person. The appeal failed.
Final Conclusion: The dismissal rested on failure to establish valid authority to institute the suit, and no ground for remand or interference was made out.
Ratio Decidendi: The statutory presumption for a power of attorney arises only when it is both executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public; mere attestation is not enough.